Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism/Archive 3

More on NPOV

While it's good that Iain Mac an tSaoir is adding and extending the content of the article, I'm concerned that there seems to be a definite re-introduction of POV with these additions. I'm also seeing the addition of unconnected material and notes. For example, the first footnote, which I hoped might specifically illuminate the connection between modern polytheist and Christian Gaelic Traditionalists, leads to a rather general article on historical Irish Christianity. It doesn't appear to go much later than 900 C.E.

I'm also seeing a tendency to try to bury contested points by presenting counter-arguments directly after the balancing material, effectively sandwiching and attempting to overwhelm contrary facts and information.

The use of the term "non-traditionalists" to describe those who disagree with the assertions of this specific movement is problematic. My understanding is that there are a large number of people who call themselves "Gaelic traditionalists," many more than actually belong to this particular movement. A simple Google search provides ample evidence of this. This oppositional description of dissenting opinion is clearly inaccurate and rather combative as well.

I'm also concerned that almost all of the footnotes added by Iain lead to articles written by him and posted on his personal website. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with that but it does set off a warning bell for me when the entry begins to become too self-referential. It begins to seem more like a vanity entry than encyclopedic and informative.

Because of my recent *cough* overzealousness in editing, I would like some feedback on these points. --Mac 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

*snicker*, overzealous? You? Neeeever! LOL As for sources written by me, please note that I am also going through the AGCT website and adding those as well. I've already added their Lughnasad article. I've not read their work before and so am having to go through each article to find references that actually apply. Otherwise we may end up with another Celtic Christianity type of reference.

*As for the Celtic Christian please feel free to delete that one and I'll find some other one somewhere. I've been known to pull the occasional rabbit out of my hat! LOL

• The Clannada isn't my personal website, it belongs to a much larger organization. I started it years ago, but its not been in my hands in half a decade. I just submit articles on occasion, and if they make through the "ritual shredding" of peer review, they get listed.
• Also, can you give me the exact statements that seem to be POV? I did contrast two different threads of policy on the "tuath" topic. But these are widely differing approaches within the movement itself. To represent one later development while neglect the other approach would be to withhold information about a large segment of the movement. Iain Mac an tSaoir

Excuse me, I was under the impression the Clannada website was under your direction. My mistake. I am deleting the Celtic Christianity note. It really doesn't support the article info. Yes, the tuath topic is an example. Almost everything added to the paragraph seems unneccessary. Qualifiers put into the contrary opinion seem designed to dilute it. The added final sentence to the para appears to be a way of "having the last word". The additional words, ostensibly clarifying, instead pad and bury dissenting opinion. I'm also going to delete the duplicate second links to websites. I believe the general Wikipedia guideline is to only have one such link per article. --Mac 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

no worries! to have 13 years of directing... that I somehow got roped into being the guy to source this thing out should not be grounds to think I am not a glutton for punishment! :-D

That is fine, then lets fix it. :-) I can see where it would look like I was diluting the contrary opinion statement. Now granted, I have been out of the loop for a while. However;

To my honest knowledge, Gaelic Traditionalists utilize the word. You stated that your ideas about a contrary opinion came from a websearch. I am more than willing to concede the point once it is established that it is traditionalist Gaels who hold the contrary opinion. Otherwise, to say that it is non-traditionalists seems a fair statement. If you'd be so kind as to list the websites, etc, wherein the contrary views are found it would help here, and might also help me find more sources other than just the CnG. Goodness it would be helpful! Not to mention that it avoids not just POV charges against what I wrote, but also avoids POV on the editor.

The other additions are quite pertinent as the approaches are vastly different. Utilizing the names of representative organizations is a tool to help people see what those differences are in real time. The differences are important because there are some such as ACTG who are trying to emulate the ancient Irish tribal system approach to social structures. And there are the second group, as typified by the Clannada, which use the word "tuath" in a sense more in line with modern Gaelic definitions (Gaeilge and Gaidhlig); that being laity, people, etc, and more specifically to people living in a specific area, a community. The differences are readily apparent, yes? Is there a better way to word it other than I have already? If so please do advise.

As the sentence, "These groups, though, counter that contention by saying that their uses of the term allows for their ethnic communities to retain their identities even while parts of larger mainstream communities", seems to be the largest issue. Therefore, would it appease the editors if the sentence were moved to the bottom of the first paragraph? This of course in a modified form? "These groups, say that their uses of the term allows for their ethnic communities to retain their identities even while parts of larger mainstream communities", is one possibility.Iain Mac an tSaoir 20:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

You misunderstand. The problem with the use of tuath is not that "non-traditionalists" dispute the Gaelic Traditionalists use of it; it's that Gaelic Trads use of it is not in accord with documented historical usage. IOW, if Gaelic Traditionalists use tuath to refer to a group of 5 to 15 people and it historically refered to thousands of people and a large area of land, this is a rather radical redefinition of the word. --Mac 05:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I hate to butt in here, but I think you should probably pause and familiarize yourself with the Polytheistic Reconstructionism entry. Many archaic terms are used for such groups - Asatru, Theodism, Heathenry and Hellenic polytheism being a few that come immediately to mind. These terms currentluy have meaning in the living cultures of Scandinavia, Germany and Greece, and Heathen has become cognate with non-christian. What matters in these instances is how the group self-identifies, not whether they have a right to use terminology. Specifically Theodism, is a neo-tribalist belief system and are attempting to do the exact same thing the GT people are doing as far as attempting to ground their religious beliefs in the integral culture from whence they derived, language being another component of traditionalism. Just like the GT people immerse themselves in Gaelic, the Theodish people immerse themselves in Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse and several other archaic languages. You can read more about this phenomenon in the book Buckley, Joshua (2004). "The Idea of Integral Culture: A Model for a Revolt Against the Modern World by Stephen Flowers". Tyr: Myth-Culture-Tradition Volume I. Ultra Publishing. pp. pp.11-21. ISBN 0972029206. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)--WeniWidiWiki 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I think it's important to get a general overall view of Gaelic Trad. Perhaps, if needed, specific divergent beliefs of sub-groups could be added in later sections. The sprinkling of these views throughout the piece does not aid clarity, it makes it difficult to understand what the core beliefs and structures are. --Mac 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not, however, what you wrote. The statement says, "As the modern, polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalist groups seem to be small, this use of "tuatha" to describe themselves is seen by many as incorrect, and not in line with historic Gaelic tradition. These groups, though, counter that contention by saying that their uses of the term allows for their ethnic communities to retain their identities even while parts of larger mainstream communities." Let me break this down into why it is problematic.

First, what is written states that "many people" have this dissenting view. You stated that the "non-traditionalist" qualifier does not apply because you found these dissenting views in a websearch. Presumably you found Traditionalist sites or why say it at all. I have asked you for those sources. Instead of citing the requested sources you have appealed to history without citations. Therefore it is a fair statement to say that it is "non-traditionalists". Unless of course you want to cite those now often requested sources. At this point in the debate I feel that whether it is you, or whether it is I, what is written on this issue will likely be based on POV. I call on an actual Wiki editor, such as Wini or JKelly, to read these dialogues and make the judgement call as non-interested parties.

Secondly, look into any number of dictionaries and you will see definitions which hold words in common. Those words make up a consensus amongst those several dictionaries. Those words are laity, people, district, community, a body of people within a specific geographical area. That is the modern use of the term per dictionaries. There is no statement about how many people must be there as citizens. Therefore your assertion that our use is a "radical redefinition" is spurious and a matter of your personal POV. Where you are correct is not about the definition, but rather about the application. To Gaelic speakers in the Motherland the term certainly regards a specific area and -every- person in it. On that you are correct. To we Gaels here the application is, a specific area and every cultural Gael in it. The definitions are identical, and the application is similar though divergent to meet local necessities here. It is a natural application allowed by the very definition of the word itself. Dictionaries can be the only real authority on this topic in a forum such as this, therefore, your contention that there is a redefinition is a matter of your own POV. I call on an actual Wiki editor, such as Wini or JKelly, to read these dialogues and make the judgement call.

Thirdly, there is consensus on every other part of the article except this one entry about the word "tuath". That is not surprising considering that there is a vast and important divergence of thought even amongst us. This specific entry though does need to note the two vastly different views about structure. The differences are vast and of extreme importance. Personally, I think you and I are likely in complete agreement on the issue of using the ancient Irish tribal system. But that is a judgement call. I have no right to impose my judgement calls on the people utilizing that system. And since judgements are born from POV, they have no place on Wiki. The same is true for both of us Sean. There is nothing combatative in stating simple fact. There is nothing combatative intended by me in the course of this dialogue, or in the few minor additions I made. Everything I added was for the sake of clarification and making things more accurate. And this with the additions of a word here and there to give proper qualification. So far it appears that you are working from unsupported POV. I call on an actual nonpartial Wiki editor, such as Wini or JKelly, to read these dialogues and make the judgement call.

Lastly, I have not only called for the sources you stated you had found in a websearch, but I have also offered to work with you on a complete rewrite of the section on structure. That has not been addressed. We can address this in this way.

I suggest paring the entry completely down to something like, "Some polytheistic, "Traditionalist Gaels", like those affiliated with an Cónaidhm Tuatha na nGael, describe themselves as an agrarian tribal people, belonging to family-based clans or tribes. In this way they say they are basing their structures on ancient Irish tribal models. Other polytheistic "Traditionalist Gaels", like those affiliated with Clannada na Gadelica, hold that their local ethnic communities should be a part of the broader communities and societies in which they are found (much like the Jewish diaspora or any other traditional ethnic community), but with a common land to act as a cultural center, for religious, educational and other types of meeting purposes at the least. These later have elected officers to govern the local communities. They call their communities "tuatha" (plural of "tuath"). Their usage of the word designates a specific area and every cultural Gael in it. Though, while that use is correct in definition it does not hold to the application found in Ireland or Scotland, as historically the word applies to specific area and every person in it." Let that be the only statement on the topic. The benefits are that it shortens the entry, clarifies everything, and completely dispenses with the source of this contention. As I just want to get this done so that I can complete sourcing it out and then move on, I call on an actual nonpartial Wiki editor, such as Wini or JKelly, to read these dialogues and make the judgement call. Iain Mac an tSaoir

Okay, I went and made an edit, just a little one. I removed the earlier dates put in the first main paragraph because I've seen no evidence to support those dates. It also contradicts Iain's previous statements on the subject. --Mac 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The dates I had listed showed when the movement stopped being a thing local to just here. There were a number of people here in this area doing this before we presented it to a much larger population via the internet. Please feel free to reference my own user page place thing to see documentation. What would otherwise go to prove the dates? And, thank you for your help. Iain Mac an tSaoir

As far as I can tell from your timeline, the first public use of Gaelic Traditionalist as a descriptive for this specific polytheist movement was in 1994. Is this correct? I remain a little concerned by the lack of independently published references to it for verification. --Mac 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote:

"There was a period of Gaelic Traditionalism is the late 1800's, but polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalism did not begin in earnest until the middle 1980's, with its first public presentation in 1993. That first public presentation was through the Clannada na Gadelica."

The very first front page was when it was still a local closed thing only. That dated from 1993 till 1994, and featured a horrible background of the Tennessee mountains. At the very top, under the CnG name, was the phrase, "Gaelic Traditionalist Resource".

At this point I too wish there were some independently published statements. It sure would make all of this a whole bunch easier! 1993 it was public but still isolated to this region only; membership was closed, but information freely accessible to the public at large. 1994 is when it went public in a much larger way via the internet; and membership became open to go along with the free flow of information. The 1993 date can be corroborated by individuals. The 1994 date is when there were official by-laws, mission statement, etc - the tools of being an organized thing. I'm going to wait till I see something back from the editor before I plough on. Iain Mac an tSaoir

I don't really know the rules of Wikipedia about this kind of documentation. My personal feeling is things like by-laws and a mission statement, all the stuff indicating the establishing of an organization with intent and focus and a name would be good enough documentation. However, because Wikipedia attempts to be a tertiary reference, I believe secondary references are prefered: mentions in a book, magazine articles, that sort of thing. So I don't really know what to say. I was wondering if the CnG site was at a different URL than http://www.clannada.org/ before 1998. I see the evidence that the site was up at that address in 1998 but not before. This might just be my own faulty research but I was just wondering. --Mac 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I presume that the documentation in question are affidavits. Much of the basis for any historical record are personal testimonies. As for the website. It was from first appearance online till 1995, mindspring.com (now defunct) account; 1995 till 1997 first housed on chattanooga.net (now defunt) account and then a voyageronline.net (now defunct) account, from 1998 on its own domain at clannada.org. To say anything more would be to insert POV.

I just had a thought on this issue. There was a time when we went for and recieved our 501 C 3. We eventually gave it up because of rules regarding having to let anyone and their brother in. Anybody and everybody who considered themselves a Celt came calling. IT was a mess whose only resolution was to go back to grassroots. However, it seems to me that during that process the date it was first organized was listed. If my ex still has that documentation, and if it is indeed listed on there, I wonder if that would work. Though, that would only prove the 1994 date and not necessarily the 93 date. Iain Mac an tSaoir

okay, here is a proposed rewrite of the problematic Tuath entry. Based on what was written above, about definitions of the word, what say ye?:

Some polytheistic, "Traditionalist Gaels", such as those affiliated with an Cónaidhm Tuatha na nGael, describe themselves as an agrarian tribal people, belonging to family-based clans or tribes. Other polytheistic "Traditionalist Gaels", such as those affiliated with Clannada na Gadelica, hold that their local ethnic communities should be a part of the broader communities and societies in which they are found (much like the Jewish diaspora or any other traditional ethnic community), but with a common land to act as a cultural center, for religious, educational and other types of meeting purposes at the least. They call their groups "tuatha" (plural of "tuath"). These groups say that their uses of the term allows for their ethnic communities to retain their identities even while parts of larger mainstream communities.

Some, such as those affiliated with an Cónaidhm Tuatha na nGael, say that they look to ancient Irish tribal models to define a tuath as based around the kin-group, or fine (plural finte), which is comprised of a large extended family descended from a common ancestor. They say a tuath is comprised of two or more core finte, with other, smaller family groups making up the remaining population. Others, such as those affiliated with Clannada na Gadelica, simply use the term in the sense provided by modern Gaelic language to describe their local traditionalist communities, as these communities are part of broader communities and societies, and without the other trappings which they consider anachronistic. However, these modern uses of "tuath" is even further disputed by non-traditionalists, as historically it referred to groups of thousands of people, as well as the territory this population claimed. <see next for last sentence>

"As the modern, polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalist groups seem to be small, this use of "tuatha" to describe themselves is seen by many as incorrect, and not in line with historic Gaelic tradition." - This sentence seems problematic to me. First, the dissenting opinion is covered in the group of people who hold to the modern use of the word, i.e. laity, people, etc, people living in a specific area, a community, a district. Secondly, the "seen by many" seems to be a personal view of the editor, who has not given any sources to support this being included. Is there a compromise?

---

Please take a time out guys and please go read some other similar entries for context. Start with Polytheistic Reconstructionism and then Theodism, Asatru, Hellenic Polytheism, etc. Much of this discussion is counter-productive. Also if there are people who specifically dispute the use of the term tuath in a neo-tribal sense we can simply mention that in context and move on. They cannot define what other groups choose to self-identify as - especially religious groups. PLEASE cease and desist from the weird formatting - it is getting old. It is impossible to read through the page when you guys indent and bullet everything. I've gone through and tried to fix it, but I don't know who wrote what in some places so guys try to look it over. Try not to create huge hierarchies - one person writes a paragraph. The nest person who replies indents. The following person, does not indent unless they are commenting on something the previous replier said. After this immediate subject is somewhat resolved, we need to archive the page again. From henceforth try to converse like normal wikipedians (look on any talk page with controversial subjects) or place ---- in between every comment so they can be differentiated. --WeniWidiWiki 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the indents. I should have said something when they began to get strange. I do know better and will try to stay on track in the future. --Mac 03:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopeful for Endgame & Consensus

Sean, if we don't get it together Wini is gonna kick our butts! :-D Having looked at the other entries presented by Wini a couple of things became apparent. First and foremost, this GT entry is the only one attempting to list "Structure". Its the only one. Why is it here at all? It seems that we've been engaging in a bit of mental masturbation debating about it. I propose that we do either of two things. The first option is to strike the "Structures" segment of the entry completely. The second option is to replace the long thing there with this compromised rewrite which covers yours and my concerns with a shorter, more accurate, less contentious, single paragraph:

"Some polytheistic, "Traditionalist Gaels", like those affiliated with an Cónaidhm Tuatha na nGael, describe themselves as an agrarian tribal people, belonging to family-based clans or tribes. In this way they say they are basing their structures on ancient Irish tribal models. Other polytheistic "Traditionalist Gaels", like those affiliated with Clannada na Gadelica, hold that their local ethnic communities should be a part of the broader communities and societies in which they are found (much like the Jewish diaspora or any other traditional ethnic community), but with a common land to act as a cultural center, for religious, educational and other types of meeting purposes at the least. These later have elected officers to govern the local communities. They call their communities "tuatha" (plural of "tuath"). Their usage of the word designates a specific area and every cultural Gael in it. Though, while that use is correct in definition it does not hold to the application found in Ireland or Scotland, as historically the word applies to specific area and every person in it."

Which of the two do you wish to choose? It isn't a mission critical thing to cover structures. I'm cool with either choice.Iain Mac an tSaoir 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Sorry to be slow at getting back to you. I have a few other projects coming to a head and need to focus on them so I'll be a little irregular here for a while.

Personally, I think the really specific details of structure should go. After looking at some of the other entries WeniWidiWiki referenced, I see that they mostly concentrate on the basics and "big picture" view of their movements. Basic tenets of belief seem prominent. I don't have suggestions on specific changes, though. --Mac 03:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wini, thank you for your edits, that approach seems much more balanced. I added some more refernces. More should hopefully be on the way. I looked at the history section, but did not know how to notate what I had done next to the edit version. I did note however that MacRusgail had noted that the words Sluagh/Muinntir/Siol etc would be better terms than tuath. I don't know how to reach him, but I would like to hear why he feels those would be better than 'tuath'. Those words have "tribe" in their modern definitions. "Tuath" allows we who make no pretense to being a tribe, be a community instead, utilizing the same word. Some degree of uniformity is helpful. So please feel free to write me. I've enjoyed the banter. Iain Mac an tSaoir 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Reference format

Iain, use the website template rather than the cite book template for citing websites - the format is as follows:

 {{cite web | title=Title | work=Title of Complete Work | url=http://www.example.com | accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}
 

To learn more about reference templates, and which ones to use look over at WP:CITET. Thanks! --WeniWidiWiki 06:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Weni! It all looked like gibberish to me. I'll use this one in future website references.

Yet More on NPOV and Editing

Hey Sean, where is the NPOV thing? Its likely simply a wording issue. If its a source thing, I've managed to come up with them so far. Oh, and just one of us is the bad Mac? :-) 68.212.250.156 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

I've re-labeled this article with the disputed neutrality notice. The edits continue to gravitate to POV and I think it needs to be stopped. I am particularly disturbed by the rendering invisible through code a remark intended to provide some balance to the whole tuath dispute. On this talk page, at least three people questioned this particular use of the term in relation to history and even current Gaelic usage. To me, that means the Gaelic Trads use of the term is disputed. That can't just be written out of the article because you dislike it. I've taken this obscuring code out.

I'm also alarmed at several instances of exceptionally circular explanations. This does not make the article clearer. Sentences like "Gaelic Traditionalists state that "Gaelic Traditionalism" is about taking up into living practice the extant Gaelic cultural traditions as those are defined by the Gaelic speaking cultures alone." are almost nonsensical in meaning. "Extant Gaelic cultural traditions" are, by definition, already in "living practice." The meaning I get from this is that these practices are not valid unless and until Gaelic Traditionalists sanction them.

I'll have more to say later. --Mac 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not do that. Wini hid them along with with a request for you to cite your sources. I have asked repeated, and another editor, Wini, has as well. You still have not supplied the requested sources, either here or in the hidden tags that Wini placed in the article. The sentence you referenced, ""Gaelic Traditionalism" is about taking up into living practice the extant Gaelic cultural traditions as those are defined by the Gaelic speaking cultures alone", makes complete sense. It is about taking up traditions asnd living them as Gaelic speakers in the Gaelic speaking communities understand them. It is not about taking things and plugging them into modern American ideaologies. The validity comes not from Gaelic Traditionalists, but rather from the Gaelic speaking cultures. Is there a better way to word it? Would """(They say)Gaelic Traditionalism" is primarily Diasporan Gaels, taking up into living practice the extant Gaelic cultural traditions as those are defined soley by the Gaelic speaking communities in the homelands." Work with me here. What are the other sentences that trouble you? Remember, we are both editing something that neither of us started; and we both are in the same boat about having to cite sources - especially when we say that we have them. Iain Mac an tSaoir 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

The whole article is without (relevant) sources, so it's more than a little problematic to start "commenting out" sections on the basis of lacking same. Sources for the thing being revived are not appropriate or adequate for an article which is supposed to be about (a particular flavour of) the revival movement. That's very problematic for an article of this length (especially its former length, and given its tendency to spring back after pruning), and essayesque tendencies. At some point this article has to start looking like an encyclopaedia entry on GT, not piece written by GTs. if there's no sources on the number of adherents and how they're objectively otherwise manifest to the outside world, it's not cause for removing of paragraphs speculating about such things (less than ideal as those are), but of "removal" of the whole article as unverifiable.

I'm with Sean on on the quoted sentence: the structure is deadening to the brain, and the intended referent is entirely obscure: it seems to be a "Gaelic speaking culture" that is not in "living practice", but is nevertheless in a position to "define" things (define itself?). The impression I get from this is, "i.e., we're recontructionists, but we don't like the way the reconstructionists reconstruct things, so we don't call ourselves that." Or that they're in some sense narrower, more academic, or more conservative (small c!) in their standards for reconstructing things. Something much clearer needs to be said about what their methodology for doing this is supposed to be. Alai 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please define for me a relevant source. I have added one source that speaks about us from a third person position. As for its former length and , well, problems, I didn't write it. I'm here with you guys just trying to get it done. I am all for removing that entire section on "Structures" as it isn't needed. And, there is no reason for it. As for the recontructionist thing v not the ... I think the former state of the article truely clouded the issue. As does that fact that there are some who call them GT who do reconstruct. That GT is not about reconstructing anything, but ratrher, is about bringing people into Gaelic speaking culture, is what that sentence is trying to say. Is there a better way to state it? Iain Mac an tSaoir 07:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

OKay, I just took a look at this. You arbitrarily reverted the article back to a disputed form, from one that was written by an impartial editor (Wini), who had left your disputes in the text along with a request for you to cite your sources, which you didn't do, and then you threw on a NPOV tag? What is with that? Iain Mac an tSaoir 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Per earlier dialogue the complete topic of "Structures" has been removed. As a consequence, as there is no longer a dispute, the NPOV tag was removed. Iain Mac an tSaoir 07:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Please See Alai's comments above. The radical redefinition of "Tuath" is only one of the many problems with this article. I do not agree at your removal of the NPOV tag and am replacing it. For the record, in case you decide to revert, here is what I was writing about "Tuath" and other concerns while others were posting:

The Wikipedia entry on tuath is one place to look. Actual Gaelic speakers spoke up here and said Iain's usage of the term to refer to their small groups was not correct. A Google search on tuath supplies examples from several different sources. All the references are to 1) historical use of the term, or 2) whole villages, or 3) alternate definitions of the term such as north or sinister. When tuath refers to laity, it is not refering to a small group of laity; it is referring to all the laity in general as opposed to all the clergy in general. The only people who seem to be using tuath in the same way as the Gael. Trads. are gamers and re-enactment groups like the SCA. Iain, what Irish dictionary are you using, as none of mine, including the RIA DIL, support the meaning you are trying to ascribe to it.

This also leads me to wonder exactly how many people your definition of Gaelic Traditionalist refers to (we know that the much larger community of Gaelic traditionalist people is not included in your subgroup). I found your Clannada Yahoo group with a membership of 101 people at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clannada2/. I suspect that this entire entry may only be refering to a group no larger than that mailing list, and possibly significantly smaller. --Mac 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the link in the article body to the old Clannada website, the single affiliate they have that seems to have an up-and-running website cites a tuath of six (6) members. This group also seems to be a member of one of the Clannada successor organisations. I'm no anthropologist, but as tribal groupings go, that seems a tad small. Indeed, small for a household. This is web-grade research, I freely acknowledge, but is the sort of basic descriptive material the article should include, from proper sources, and seems to carefully avoid doing. Alai 07:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

About their groups, we have this statement: "Clannada na Gadelica (or CnG) [1] was the first Gaelic Traditionalist organization to form in the United States, but today other groups like an Cónaidhm Tuatha na nGael (or ACTG) [2], and the Cáirdean Ceilteach Ameireaga[3] are active." But the third "active" group consists of four member "tribes", but three of the four links are to nonexistent webpages. The fourth group is already listed on the second linked site, and that site also included "groups with whom we have no treaty" which seems to mean "groups that don't belong to this group". The only "tribes" for which we have any details seem to be only a handful of people at most. --Martin MacGrath 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never stated how many there are because I don't know. I do know that on the last roll that we did there was significantly more than that number but that isn't relevant. Please note that I also asked for the rationale on the other words submitted. Please don't ascribe to me the errors in the previous form of the article. I didn't write it, I am simply in the same position as you guys, trying to get this thing to be an accurate reflection. Please note that in the dialogue above, I agreed with you that accuarately, it does indeed refer to everyone in an area. I don't have an issue with the dispute, I did not hide dispute, the text was there along with a request for citations. What is significant to me is that I also offered to get rid of the topic altogether. I never heard back from on that. As for the dictionary, it is Focloir Scoile, An Gum. Iain Mac an tSaoir 07:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Noted, and I certainly have no desire to rag on you. (Ragging on the article I have to confess to.) The basic issue here is sourcing; unless we have some notable sources actually on GT (ideally, a mixture of both primary and secondary, and of proponent and detractor/skeptic), we're doomed to argue about the merits of one unverified and possibly unverifiable paragraph vs. another unverified and possibly unverifiable paragraph, which is unlikely to get us anywhere in the long run. Alai 07:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

ROFL well, thank you for not desiring to rag on me personally. You guys didn't draft me to try to fix this then abandone in a bad project. So there are no hard feelings on my end. A little desparation at this point maybe, as I just want it over, but being a former Marine, not being to let go my post till properly relieved. Like that is going to happen! As for ragging on the article, oh boy howdy, I can assure you that I've done a bit of that myself privately. I was actually hoping to get people involved in Gaelic culture involved. That was why I kept asking for sources from Sean. I think its vital that it be shown what people involved there think, and how things have been historically done. IMO, it provides the lithmus test on whether or not the phenomena is real - justification is a good thing.Iain Mac an tSaoir 08:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Historicity is only pertinent to this article as it reflects directly on what GTs actually do. That these sources are in some way a model for what the GTs intend or claim to do is not. For all the actual relevance the current "sources" have, one might as well have thrown in the Tain bo Cuailnge. Firsty party sources would be somewhat useful to confirm the various GT statements, disputes, saying, characterisations, etc. But just transscribing the contents of a number of websites is not encylopaedic either in tone, or in standards of evidence. This is absolutely not the place to judge whether the phenomena is "real" in any sense of the authenticy they claim. Rather, it should be a compendium of a balanced selection of notable and verifiable views and conclusions for elsewhere. If there is no balancable set of N&V materials, there should be no article at all. Alai 08:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

With the section on structure gone, wherein are the further disputes? Please be specific so that they can be addressed. Iain Mac an tSaoir 07:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Okay, is there correction to the 1st sentence under General corrected to everyones satisfaction or is there more needed.

It certainly reads better, but I'm still unclear what it's referring to. What's "the extant cultural traditions"? I get the impression this does not mean, "we went on a study trip to the Galway gaeltacht/South Uist, here's what they're doing, let's do likewise". But equally I don't know what it does mean. Alai 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is about studying the living, lore, customs, language, etc, that exists there, in Ireland or Scotland, and then putting them into living practice here. (huh, that might be a better way to word it, do you agree?) The effort is to assimilate ourselves into the culture - completely. Because it is people here, people raised in English speaking America primarily, the movement itself is bilingual, or working very hard to get there. Iain Mac an tSaoir 08:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

It is? Oh. I'm even more confused than before, then. Other than the language, the modern gaeltachtaí don't appear to resemble the cultural and religious objective the article sets out at all. Hence the need to make said reference much clearer and more explicit. Alai 08:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hence, a core problem: Their name for themselves, and the name of this article. As long as the authors continue to call their small, modern group "The Gaelic Traditionalists" or "The Traditionalist Gael", members of the larger, traditional Gaelic culture who come across this article are going to say, "What on earth are they talking about?" The name is especially problematic when the authors insist on calling those who disagree with their modern interpretations "non-Traditionalists." As long as they insist on this nomenclature, which is often at odds with huge numbers of people using the same nomenclature, I do not see how this situation can be resolved. --Martin MacGrath 08:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha! This is indeed an essential point: If this entry is titled "Gaelic Traditionalism" but the content bears little to no relation to how the vast majority of people who use the term define it, then I question it's place in this encyclopedia. Does this make sense? --Mac 09:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's an insuperable problem as such. If we can produce other commentary on their use of such terminology, that would put it in context. ("Gaelic Traditionalists are a tiny bunch of non-Gaelic non-traditionalists who insist that their neopagan reconstruction not be called 'neopagan' or 'reconstruction'." A. N. V. Critic, Esq., that sort of thing.) If nothing notable's been written about them, then we have bigger problems than just terminology. But I agree, the terminology does have a large "huh?" factor. Alai 09:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Alai, it is not the inclusion of alternative views that is problematic. It is the antagonistic tone that is taken while doing so. Not that I don't understand why that exists. I do. That whole first article set the tone of this whole morass. The thing is that it is not the same entry that originally sat there. Lets address this as a new thing please. I assure you I do want to work with you, so please work with me. I can understand why you would have wanted to rag on the article as it sat originally. Considering that its not addressing the traditionalist people in the Gaeltachtaí, I can understand why you would like doing so now. Someone needs to step in here and make that the primary point of this entry, with a secondary notation to what Gaelic Traditionalists are doing here. As for pagan aspects to the entry, Celtic Christians have yet to step up to the plate.

Sean, I see a couple problems though. The first is that no one has stepped up to the plate and begun writing about Gaelic traditionalists in the gaeltachtaí. That should have been starting point long ago. What we do here should be a note to that. Lets address these issues, without antagonism or preconceieved notions. Amongst that which is antagonistic is insisting on lumping the whole movement here into the neo-pagan category. Its unfortunate that there are those who claim to be Gaelic traditionalists who do go about reconstructing - and then claim there aren't reconstructionists. You and I are on the same page there. From your words here I can see that it causes you concern just as it does me. Other than tighten this article up, ultimately neither of us can do a thing about that. Please recognize that it is not right to create a stereotype about the whole movement based on those who reconstruct and then deny reconsructionism. There are plenty of stereotypes about Irish people and Scots people. There are individuals who perhaps to some degree live up to the stereotypes. But actually, the steroetypes are wrong, they are damaging. The stereotype that has been created for us is the same, it isn't correct, and it is damaging. Now I'll admit that a month or two back when I came into this I was overwhelmed. My eyes glazed over trying to catch up, I was called in to cite sources, so I started citing books. I had no clue what was wanted or what the fundamental issues were. This is the first I have seen it intimated that it is traditionalist Gaels in the Motherlands that take issue. Please do not base the whole off of what was seen prior, please base it off what you are experiencing now. At this point you are working with someone who wants a reasonable, balanced, and accurate approach to this entry. It is incredibly important that it be accurate. It would be wonderful to the extreme if it started with traditionalists there. At this point I don't want just a little dispute sentence or two. At this point I may want it even more hardline than you. I want us to start with Gaelic traditionalists in the Gaeltachtaí. That is the only true place for it to start. However, I must rely on you guys as you are evidently there. From that base a note about what traditionalists (who don't incorporate syncretism) are doing here. There really is no need for antagonism.

Martin, as far as whether we are Gaelic or not, that is a matter of meeting the anthropological definitions of the word. From my POV, unfortunately the original article was primarily written by those who do reconstruct and then deny being reconstructionist. I can't stop that. What I can do is adhere to the principles that my own people started out with. We started out years ago wanting the culture. We started out those years ago knowing we had to be flexible, and mandating that we become ever the more culturally accurate as we learned. We are willing to learn. So tell me why those words you offered are better. Make the case, privately is you wish. I can assure you that if the case is made, reasonably, civilly, you'll see movement towards what is more accurate. We are mandated to do so. I also at this point think we here are mandated to address traditionalism in the Gaeltachtaí first, with what the Diaspora is doing second. 70.153.148.95 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Pardon me if I don't address all of the above for the time being, but one point I really want to stress: I am absolutely not suggesting that this article address "Gaelic traditionalists in the gaeltachtaí". I'd be strongly opposed to any such thing, on the same grounds as I was to the copious amount of "background on the thing we're trying to revive" material that previously dominated the article (and is still the only sourced content). If the article needs to be retitled to make that clear (Modern American Gaelic Traditionalism, or something like that), then let's do it. Indeed, I'm not even clear if such exist, in anything like the sense described here. (Certainly there are Irish cultural and language revivalists, Celtic neopagans, and various combinations and permutations thereof, but it's entirely opaque to me if they're anything like "GTs" as such.) I mention the gaeltachtaí only in connection with how mystified am I by GTs' self-definitions as expressed in pieces such as this article, and the various websites. Since what these describe seem nothing at all like modern gaeltacht areas, I can't fathom in what sense these can any way "define" the scope of GTism. None of this correlates at all with what I still claim the article desparately needs, which is outside N&V commentary on the "MAGTs", specifically. Alai 23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of "antagonistic tone"; I'm not sure whether you're referring to disputes on-wiki, or of "past history" between GTs and various people of a different POV commenting on them. Assuming it's the latter, we shouldn't include or exclude them purely on that basis. What we ideally want, as with sympathetic of purely descriptive material is that it be notable (and of course verifiable), and ideally hopefully broadly representative of a general set of views on GT. If Gaelic scholars love these guys, and the self-described reconstructionists loathe them (or whatever permutation), this would ideally be made clear, with some as-high-quality-as-possible source that illustrates such a view. Alai 08:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see and acknowledge what you say. I see your point. Our position though, is that only those in the gaeltachtaí have a right to judge what or how we do things. They have this right because they are the ones who have been the conservators of the traditions. To us, they are the only ones outside of us. That is why when Sean and you wrote in a way that indicated the views of people in the gaeltachtaí, you got the response from me that you did. We are trying to create gaeltachtaí here. Bilingual perhaps because of neccesity, but gaeltachtaí nonetheless. As for the conflicts with reconstructionists, I had no idea things had gotten to where they are. I knew there were issues because in the early days some of us weren't as able to articulate what we are trying to accomplish. It seemed to us that they were trying to assimlate us which whizzed us off; and in response we were bellicose and combatitive as we would periodically purge them from our midst, which whizzed them off. Who was right, who was wrong, both. But I thought all of the issues were settled years ago. At this point, with the olive branches that I have personally offered, without even the decency of a reply back, its obvious that there are some whose agendas are met only by stoking the fire of these contentions. I really am a reasonable guy. So if I am wrong here tell me. But it seems to me that what you are saying is that the disputes that reconstructionists have with us should be included in this article? Is that so? If that is so will they allow us to address our disputes in theirs? That seems only fair if we must go about putting non-traditionalist disputes in this article. And if the people doing it aren't traditionalists, then why the concern in openly stating so? Should NPOV tags go onto the reconstructionist entries? It seems silly that either would want to engage in some sort of silly war that will only damage both movements, and most importantly, damage the People in those movements. Iain Mac an tSaoir 15:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Iain

I understand your position (or at least, with your assistance, I think I'm beginning to), but your interpretation of who is a "legitimate critic" of GT isn't restrictive of the scope of the GT article. Specifically, wikipedia policy mandates that all "notable" and "verifiable" viewpoints be taken account of and represented, in as balanced a fashion as editors can arrive at by consensus. Let me make clear that I'm not making any particular claims as to what those N&V viewpoints actually are, I was essentially just speculating what they might be, on the basis of the trend of comments I've seen made in not-particularly-N&V contexts (like WP talk pages). If CR criticism of GR isn't notable, or isn't verifiable, I'm absolutely not going to argue that it be included here. But if GT is notable enough for a WP article, there must surely be some non-GT sources on what GT is like as a phenomenon, at some level. (News coverage, sociological interest, or as you suggest, public communication with, or commentary by, the Irish and Scots communities.) If nothing like that exists, then I'm inclined to suspect that GT is not in fact notable enough for a WP article. (Or at least only for a much more cautiously descriptive one.)

The same standard applies to inclusion of GT views on CR. Are they notable? Are they verifiable? If so, how should they best be represented in that article? (If they essentially just agree with the various people asserting "you just are just making this stuff up/lumping all sorts of stuff in here" I imagine they're not the only people making such claims, and may well not be the most notable exemplars of such, for example.) Do bear in mind that wikipedia's interests are less identified with the GTs', or with the CRs', than with the person not at all informed, or marginally so, about either, who is looking here for neutral information on the topic, that has a certain scholarly authority. The GT views, and the CR views, on this and that they can probably cull from the various websites. WP articles have to aspire to said neutrality, which they can only achieve my representing all relevant views, and to scholarship, which critically requires the evidence of sources. Alai 15:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Iain Mac an tSaoir wrote: "We are trying to create gaeltachtaí here." But this is not what the gaeltacht areas are. The gaeltacht areas are by definition the areas where the languages and cultures still survive. They are not modern creations. To try to create a community where one formerly did not exist, to have a group of Americans learn Irish and adopt what they believe are Gaelic customs, does not equal a gaeltacht. You may be able to find a pocket dictionary that gives an abbreviated definition of "gaeltacht" as "a gaelic-speaking community", but that would be taking the word outside of the living cultural context. --Martin MacGrath 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Alai wrote: "If nothing like that exists, then I'm inclined to suspect that GT is not in fact notable enough for a WP article. (Or at least only for a much more cautiously descriptive one.)" I think, rather than use internet flame wars as fodder for Wikipedia content, it would be best to focus on the latter part of your suggestion: a briefer, much more cautiously descriptive article. I am starting a new section to discuss this as, once again, this Talk page is getting unweildy. --Martin MacGrath 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Names and Meaning

(I echo WeniWidiWiki and Alai's requests that we attempt to keep these comments brief, preferably less than an screenful/edit page long if possible. I'm sure some people who would help here are not doing so because they glaze over reading these comments and trying to get up to speed. One reason why I keep starting new sections is because it becomes difficult to navigate long and unwieldy sections.)

I know this particular issue seems to have been beaten into the ground but I'm going to have one more go at it. Not all "Gaelic traditionalists" (note small "t") are the self-identified "Gaelic Traditionalists" (note capital "T") who are described in this article. Nor is every mention of "Gaelic traditionalists" a reference to this particular polytheistic movement. Case in point: the second footnote cite/reference in the article to this source: http://orgs.carleton.edu/Druids/ARDA2/doc/2part11-3c1.doc. Reading the reference, it seems quite clear to me the reference to "Gaelic traditionalists" in the document is to Neo-druids who incorporate Gaelic traditions, and who are describing THEMSELVES, NOT to the "Gaelic Traditionalists" of this Wikipedia article. This goes back to Martin's comments above. Gaelic traditionalists (small t) are not an organized, hierarchical group. They are not the group described in this article. There doesn't seem to be a centralized philosophy or structure, aside from a common interest in preserving Gaelic traditions. Once again, there seems to be a conflation going on here between rather different movements with some points of commonality. Therein lies the confusion. --Mac 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right Sean. It is confusing. To be concise, that blurb is speaking about us, but appears confusing because they don't understand that there are differences. If you had been a part of whats been going on for 13 years you would easily be able to sort it out. As for the "organized, hierarchical group", that is why I was pushing to make sure it was shown that Gaelic Traditionalism as it originated in this movement, were communities with elected officers. Not the reconstructed stuff.Iain Mac an tSaoir 15:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Iain

Its real easy to cast stones, and tear apart, and attempt to destroy. Thats the easy part. If you are going to tear something apart, how about offering suggested corrections for replacing. One way to judge peoples character is to see whther they are given to destroying or building. Help me build this, lets make it something everyone can be proud of.Iain Mac an tSaoir 15:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Iain

Avoiding Deletion

Alai wrote: "If nothing like [scholarly, outside sources on MAGT] exists, then I'm inclined to suspect that GT is not in fact notable enough for a WP article. (Or at least only for a much more cautiously descriptive one.)"

Alai, do you think we can avoid deletion of the article if we:

• Once again edit it down to be very brief.
• Remove all "sources" that do not describe the modern movement described in this article.
• Rigorously edit for NPOV.
• Do not allow re-essayfication.
• Take your suggestion of renaming and moving it to Modern American Gaelic Traditionalism.
  

??? --Martin MacGrath 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those are all good tactics, but (unless the editing-down is really extreme) what's really key is additional sources that are on the modern movement, and that verify the content (altering the content as necessary). Alai 20:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're looking at "really extreme" then, or deletion, because if any outside sources existed, I think they would have been mentioned by now. --Martin MacGrath 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That was my suspicion. If there's no source on this beyond websites and mailing lists, it's not really verifiable beyond it's being an "internet phenom", and if said websites and mailing lists are as small as they appear, it's of pretty limited notability too. I have no objection to holding off for a while to see if they turn up, but not indefinitely. Alai 23:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs all of your suggestions, although the renaming might not be suitable. Also, "Gaelic culture" and "Gaelic heritage" redirected here, and I had to redirect them, because I don't think this is what most people would look for when typing in those phrases. --MacRusgail 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

With those sorts of redirects happening, I don't see how we can avoid renaming it. --Martin MacGrath 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed not. Looks like a good-faith error, though, not a nomenclature-jack. The above name suggestion was purely off the top of my head, I'm more than open to others. Perhaps Gaelic Traditionalism (modern), (or "(lifestyle)" or, "(movement)", or whatever the best descriptor might be). Or indeed, move it to the name of the best-known such organisation, if there is one clear such. Alai 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

While Gaelic Traditionalism (modern) is probably closer to usual Wiki naming standards, it could still mislead people to think it's about modern Irish or Scottish culture. An argument for Modern American Gaelic Traditionalism is it makes clear, right up front, that this is not about modern traditions in Ireland or Scotland, but an American (or, well, internet) phenom. --Martin MacGrath 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the turns that this discussion has taken, but I want to point out that Wikipedia isn't in the business of coming up with brand new names for things. Jkelly 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then how would you suggest we deal with the extensive confusion the name creates? The problem being discussed is that, in general usage, "Gaelic traditionalism" means something very different than the meaning recently ascribed to that phrase by the small group this article covers. --Martin MacGrath 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming both a complete lack of reliable secondary sources and a need to rename the article, I would probably recommend Clannada na Gadelica. Incidentally, I notice that our current version of the article has a 1960 book referencing the fact that the first group formed in 1994, and that searching on "ACTG" and "Cónaidhm Tuatha" does not result in any hits in the document footnote 2 is pointing to. Jkelly 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Have you ever had that freshly violated feeling? I have it now. You're right, that article no longer comes up. Last week while trying to source it I read through his materials. Then when I went back to actually source the article out I found that the front page and menues came up, but the articles did not. I wrote to him, asking that a specific article (#2) be put up. He put it up, and as it appears took it back down. I had asked for other sources but was told in no uncertain terms that it was my posterior hanging in the breeze. Nice blade in the back huh? Personally, I move that this article be removed, deleted. But I do ask a boon, as someone who honestly did try to work with you all. That boon is to leave this discussion page up for a few days. It is important. It is important for people involved to read this and know that some of us were brought into this only a short time ago. Some of us really had no clue about a lot of things. That same few of us were brought in then abandoned to an ill concieved project; a project that we diligently stuck with out of a sense of loyalty to GT. To GT, not to ACTG or Breandan. Breandan does not speak for GT. He certainly doesn't speak for me, or the Clannada, or even most of Gaelic Traditionalism (capital T <soft smile>). I am so sorry to you all. To the CRs for the problems that have been created. To the fine people who have worked very hard on this article, Sean, Alai, MacGrath, JKelly, Wini all of you. You all are awesome. Please do delete the article, so that the Marine can consider himself relieved of duty. Semper Fidelis

The TnC website was taken down for overhauling and retooling, as was explained in the email. You requested the article, I put it back up, and it is STILL up ([1]). Nobody stabbed you in the back, and you certainly did not contact me with any of these problems at all. You simply posted this here, and did not ask me for any of this. I understand the frustrations, but backstabbing? hardly. Breandán 06:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum- Iain and I have spoken offline, and it has been discovered to have been one gigantic miscommunication and misunderstanding on everyone's part, all is well now. Breandán 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a Gaelic Traditionalist, but I want to come to their defense here. There *are* external sources for discussion of Gaelic Traditionalism (one by me, in fact, but I hesitate to offer it here because of the potential for damage to the movement and had hoped to work some of that out with a certain person in the GT movement eventually). GT is not as small as some of you seem to think it is. There are GTs in Ireland and Scotland (and Australia, New Zealand, Canada ...). There are also related movements like Celtic Heathen Revivalism which also have adherents in Ireland and Scotland (and Australia, New Zealand, Canada ...). In addition, the allegation that GTs (and by implication, Celtic Heathen Revivalists, who share many of the goals of the Gaelic Traditionalist Polytheists) are trying to "create" Gaeltachtaí is a bit of a misprepresentation of the truth of the matter; Gàidhlig was spoken in various places in the American South (e.g., in North Carolina until the beginning of the 20th century) throughout the 1700s and 1800s, and Gaelic and Irish are still spoken in various areas in Canada, so "create" is a bit strong --- "revive" would be better, as some of these places have only been without the Gaelic for a couple or three generations. Putting this article under the heading "Clannada na Gadelica" would be to ignore some serious differences between CnG and other GT groups. In short, I am not sure what the problem here is, nor what is supposed to be disputed. This all looks like hostile reaction, rather than any attempt to reach a compromise that will satisfy "neutral point of view." User:Croman_mac_Nessa

Now that I am relieved of duty, let me break this down a little. There are -no- sources written that clearly talk about Gaelic Traditionalism. My citing our articles is not academic. The very nature that it is us talking about us makes it biased. Thats because we are talking about ourselves. That makes it more of a Public Relations piece than an encyclopedia entry. Thats the problem with self reference. It all begins to look like an info-mercial. They were willing to cut us some slack. But then even one of the self referencing references went away. A massive section of the tools I was supposed to have went away.I could not even self-reference. They were cutting us slack! In whole it throws the whole mess into question, serious question. That Gaelic Traditionalism exists is beyond question. That isn't the problem. The question has been what is it? Is there objective -objective- refernce to it. There isn't. Iain Mac an tSaoir 03:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

"Thats because we are talking about ourselves. That makes it more of a Public Relations piece than an encyclopedia entry." - Fair enough, but you have your own website(s) to do this on, and wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. The Federal Commonwealth Society tried that stunt. --MacRusgail 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Croman, if there are usable sources, please provide them. It does us no good to be told in the abstract they exist, if they're not made known to editors and readers of this page. Their lack precisely is the problem here, and if you can't see why, I refer you to WP:VERIFY. I don't quite understand Iain's statement on the one hand that GT is an attempt to (re)create gaeltachtaí, vs. yours that there GTs in Scotland and Ireland (which I'd be especially keen to see a source for). If both these statements are true, what distinguishes "Irish GT" from "Irish Gaeltacht resident"? I get the distinct impression that different definitions are in play here. You appear to suggest that Celtic Heathen Revivalists are sufficiently related to fall within the scope of this article, but their thing sounds to me remarkably like Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, which GTs seem to rather vigorously assert to be something entirely different. If they're not GTs as defined in this article, then discussing them here isn't going to be helpful (other than to delineate the difference, which would be nice after we've properly described the core topic). A broader article discussing the two (or however many!) together would seem preferable to me, but I get the impression that'd cause a great deal of trouble.

Iain, don't worry about this page disappearing immediately; the article's not yet been nominated for deletion, I don't recommended it be so while providing references is being actively discussed, and the discussion period requires five days. (And if necessary the discussion page can be preserved in user space.) You put the problem with the lack of sources very nicely. If the situation is as you say, I don't see how this article can viably exist in anything considering itself an encyclopaedia, however it's rewritten. (The idea that it doesn't need to be rewritten I don't see as remotely arguable even if sources exist.) Alai 04:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article does go up for deletion, I agree that the Talk pages should be archived, and accessible in some manner. I don't know how that works, though. In many ways, my idea of whittling the article down to a very small NPOV statement was because I agree that the Talk pages should be preserved, so they can be referred to the next time this topic comes up. If the Talk pages can be preserved without the article, where would they be linked from and how would they be accessed? --Martin MacGrath 04:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, I say delete the bloody thing. It has become so bogged down in nationalistic bigotry, thinly-veiled antagonism from certain corners, etc. that its just not worth what little use the article may have been. It keeps being foisted off as an "American" movement, despite the well-documented fact, from the very links in the article itself and the pages of our tuatha, that it is international, and has adherents in Ireland, Scotland, England, mainland Europe, Israel, Australia, Canada, etc. Assumptions were made that our tuatha are comprised of "5 to 15 people", yet no sources are provided to back that up. How do you know? Did you bother to ask, or did you simply assume, or believe whoever whispered that to you via email from those among our detractors? This entire argument, all of it, is pointless, asinine, and needs to end. We exist, we prosper, and will continue to do so whether a handful of people who have chosen to appoint themselves as spokespersons for entire nations or movements agree with us or not. Some people have tried in an honest desire to see this article become something appropriate for Wikipedia, and I sincerely appreciate their efforts. However, I have a company to run, a tuath to manage, a family to be a part of, and a whole long laundry list of better things to do than waste my time dealing with this mess, so for my part, I say ditch it. The article has neither helped nor hindered our movement, so it doesn't really matter at this point, and far too much time and energy has been wasted on it that could have been better served on helping our people prosper and grow. Many people contributed to the original article, but I posted it on Wikipedia, so I take full responsibility for the time wasted on it. However, there's no point in wasting any more, and this looks like it will just continue to be a round-robin argument over the same issues with the same people, and will never get anywhere. Breandán 07:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Breandan, I've explicitly cited a GT "tuath" that directly states that it consists of six people, which seems to be exactly your standard for "well-documented". (It's not wikipedia's, but that's another matter.) I'm not quite clear who specifically you're suggesting is being motivated by nationalism, revivalist infighting, or email whispering campaigns, but I suggest you try to assume good faith as much as possible, and apply a presupposition of the motivation being "an honest desire to see this article become something appropriate for Wikipedia" as broadly as you are able. Alai 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was stated elsewhere that the entire criticism of the GT article was stirred up by emails sent by people who have a personal issue with myself and certain other Traditionalists and associated persons. I retract the statement as it was made in frustration. Breandán 06:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks as if everyone from the GT camp who was involved in writing and editing the article has given up in frustration, so getting more input from that corner seems unlikely at present. This leaves the article in the hands of people outside the movement, and there is, as has been noted, a great deal of hostility toward the movement from (certain) outsiders. I would like to thank those of you who gave me some pointers on my talk page, but I'm not sure what help I can be currently. Still, I'll keep an eye on things and make any necessary comments here in the talk area of the article as someone with first-hand experience of the GT movement (and who isn't particularly hostile to that movement). --User:Croman_mac_Nessa 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Things do seem to have gone a little quiet from that quarter; perhaps there will be additional input when that group have reflected further, or if others happen along. I entirely agree that your status as 'first hand but not first party (nor hostile)' is very valuable here, and if you see ways to improve the article, please do get stuck in, or as you say, make suggestions on this page. I doubt this is likely to flip-flop to a hostile-POV article any time soon, but if it does, and remains unsourced, that's obviously as problematic as the status quo, or potentially moreso. Alai 03:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Sources

It apppears to me that we are once again veering into subjects that have already been covered. In order that the discussion of deletion or not stay on track, I am creating this section for discussion of any proposed sources. Unless anyone has a better idea, I am proposing that the deletion vs preservation discussion continue above, and any Sources proposals below. --Mac 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources for the membership of the various groups are their own member rolls, and I brought this up because of the suggestion that this is a purely American phenomenon. One of the leaders of ACTG is Australian, for Crom's sake. There have been Irish and Scots also involved in one or more of these groups from time to time, and there are still some involved. The page on the ACTG website that gives links to various GTP and CHR groups shows at least one in Canada and I believe there was reference to one in Ireland the last time I looked (though it may have said "forming" or something sib, not sure now). CHR is regarded by some (and may be seen) as a subgroup of GTP, but I (the supposed "founder" of the CHR movement) regard CHR as distinct from both GT (and GTP) and CR, though closely related to both movements (and should not be seen as a "middle path" between the two), possibly somewhat closer to GTP than CR. One of the main CHR groups is located in Canada. As for my own writing on the various "camps" (as I have called them), with apologies to Iain (with whom I had hoped, and still hope, to discuss some things eventually so that certain matters could/can be resolved), here it is: http://groups.msn.com/CromansGrove/varieties.msnw

You will note that it has an appendix as well, but that really goes into more specific concerns over a particular term and its use (and misuse) by the various "camps." It might be relevant in some respects, but the main article on "Varieties" is the one to which I alluded previously. I believe this article describes some of the main differences between GT, CHR, and CR fairly well, but it must be noted that it's written from my own perspective based not only on my studies, but also on my experiences with a _random sample_ of CRs, GTs, Meso-Druids, and Neo-Druids over the years, and so may be a bit biased.

As for "self promotion," is the CR entry really any different? It looks to me as if most (if not all) of those who have contributed are solidly in the CR "camp." User:Croman_mac_Nessa

Croman, you are recapitulating arguments that have been thrashed to death in these pages. Please, if you want to join this discussion, go back and read through the discussion that has taken place already, and read the policy pages others have suggested to you as to what constitutes a verifiable, Wiki-appropriate source. I don't mean to be testy here, but this stuff has already been covered exhaustively. --Martin MacGrath 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion (been keeping up with it for over a month now, in fact, but haven't had time to get involved till now), and it looks to me as if some of you are demanding almost the equivalent of having a Nazi write an article about Judaism. Seriously. While the majority of CRs are not really so antagonistic towards GT, there are a handful who have willfully misrepresented the movement based on *personal* dislike of certain individuals in the movement and/or jealousy and/or a sense of being threatened. User:Croman_mac_Nessa

This article is not about Nazis, CRs, or any of the other groups you seem to be referring to here and in your comments up thread. Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. I am afraid Godwin's Law is in effect. --Martin MacGrath 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This article *is* about GTs and GTPs, to whom I have referred repeatedly; mention of CRs has been going on before I came in and first posted, so my continued mention of them hardly seems out of bounds; and as for Nazis, no, the article isn't about Nazis, but the analogy I offered was apt. If "Godwin's Law" is in effect, then why is it that I'm the one who can't be answered without the responders getting "testy," and why are none of my points addressed (I *was* trained as a Logician, thank you very much)? It seems to me that you have no real answers to my objections. The "Nazi analogy" here is singularly appropriate, because you seem to want the opponents of GT to come in and edit the article, which is *exactly* like asking a Nazi to edit an article on Judaism, or a KKK member to edit an article about African-Americans, or an ultraconservative Republican to edit an article about Democrats (or vice-versa). If you can't understand that analogy and why it's appropriate, maybe you should breathe before replying to my comments and think about what I've said. Heck, you didn't even read my article before you decided it was inappropriate, so how seriously should I take you? And just why is it inappropriate (and yes, I read the Wiki pages about sources, etc)? User:Croman_mac_Nessa

By "this article" I was referring to the Gaelic Traditionalism article here on Wikipedia. This, what you are reading right now, is the discussion page for the editing of the Wikipedia GT article. This page is only for discussion of edits to be made to the Wikipedia GT article. This section in particular is for discussing whether deletion of the article can be avoided. Not all participants in these discussions have been exemplary about staying concise and on-topic. However, that is the standard we are trying to live by. I did read the article you posted to your MSN group. As I said on your talk page, and as is explained in the WP:VERIFY page you were directed to by Alai, blog entries and personal websites are not generally seen as appropriate sources for citation on Wikipedia. --Martin MacGrath 05:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to "this article," that is, "the Gaelic Traditionalism article here on Wikipedia," in asserting that "This article *is* about GTs and GTPs" (in case you didn't get the second abbreviation, it here means "Gaelic Traditionalist Polytheists," who have also referred to themselves as "Polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalists" and by other names). But since the subject of CRs has come up here on the discussion pages several times, then (as I noted previously) my own references to them here on the discussion pages can hardly be considered off-topic or out of bounds. As for my brief discussion of CHR, that was in response to a suggestion that CHR is identical with CR, which I find highly offensive (and not because I dislike CR, but because of certain individuals in the CR movement who have shown themselves to be so unconcerned about accuracy as to attack the term "Gaelic Revivalism" with all manner of unwarranted slander simply because Breandán used it at one time, without bothering to find out that he borrowed it from my own usage and that I was the one who coined the term "Celtic Revivalism" (which I now generally call "Celtic Heathen Revivalism" to distinguish it from the Celtic Twilight, aka "Celtic Revivalist" movement in literature and the arts during the Victorian Era).

I'm not sure how you could have read all four pages of my rather verbose article in the short amount of time between when I posted the link and the time when you replied and claimed that it was inappropriate (I'm a speed reader and am of course familiar with my own work, but I couldn't have read the whole thing that quickly). My site is not a "personal website," but is rather an online "community" (as MSN calls it) for my ... TUATH (like it or not, that's what we call our groups, in CHR as well as in GT and GTP), and the membership of that "community" online is near 200 people. And what's more, referencing the websites of GT and GTP groups was already approved for use in "this article," so I'm not sure why the Croman's Grove site is being tossed into the "blog entries and personal websites" category as if it's irrelevant. I am not the only author of materials on the site, and there are even messageboards for the community to comment on the various articles by myself and others in leadership positions in our Tuath.

And discussion of structure was entirely appropriate for the article, because GT and GTP (and CHR) are not simply religious movements, but cultural movements, which include a strong focus on the social structure, economics, and political views of our Iron Age Ancestors. References to modern political views, however, may be something best left out of the article, as my own experience shows that while a large number of GTs are "conservative," describing the movement as "libertarian" (with a small "l") is probably a more accurate assessment.

With reference to the nationality issue, an Irishman (or a Scot) is no more Gaelic than a Hindustani, unless he LIVES THE CULTURE. Culture is not genetic, nor limited by national boundaries. Too many Irish and Scottish folk have prostituted themselves to the Global Corporatist movement and the culture of the shiny thing, and regard anything connected to their Gaelic past as "rustic," or "primitive," or "not viable if you want to make a living," or "good for nothing but planting potatoes." As some have said previously, that's their business and not ours, but just how they are qualified to critique what is and what is not Traditional Gaelic anything?

And, as some of the original authors suspected, I also suspect that some of these objections have been instigated by known enemies of the GT movement, as I've already hinted, or that what is being called for is *their* input here, which is, frankly, ridiculous for the reasons I've already mentioned.

I do see why Breandán and Iain seem to have given up on this article in frustration. It's a very sad state of affairs when obviously hostile people are allowed to interfere with an attempt to provide reliable information, even if that information comes from within the very movement being discussed. I've seen several of you completely ignore evidence that contradicts your own biased views, repeatedly, and then continue to spew forth the same old tired nonsense that's already been contradicted, without ever offering any counter-evidence (that is known in Logic as "Begging the Question," and it's a Fallacy). I've seen WWW call on several of you to explain your various objections to this and that in the article, to little avail. I've begun to get frustrated myself, and I've only just started involving myself. User:Croman_mac_Nessa

Croman, how is this furthering the edit or the editing process? --Mac 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee, I dunno. Sources have been demanded from the GTs involved in writing/editing this, they have provided them, those sources have been criticised as self-referential, and external sources have been called for. I provided one such external source, but it's "not good enough" for those who have repeatedly ignored what was inconvenient to themselves. Various criticisms of this and that have been tossed out, answered, and the answers ignored.

I'm just pointing out that if a "neutral point of view" is sought, it won't be achieved by having people involved in the editing who are so obviously opposed to the entire concept of GT as to disregard the Laws of Logic when they don't like the conclusions that are arrived at validly by those laws in support of some of the claims of adherents of the movement. It seems that they won't be satisfied till the article is gone, and then they can continue to pretend that anything Heathen in Irish and Scottish culture was dead long ago, and that noone outside Ireland and Scotland has any clue what Gaelic culture is all about (as if our Ancestors somehow magically and completely divorced themselves from all their facticity and heritage as soon as they got off the boats in the lands to which the Diaspora was dispersed, and as if many of us in the Diaspora don't read massive amounts of news from Ireland and Scotland every week, and as if some of us don't read it every day, etc), and that being "Scottish" or "Irish" qualifies one to pontificate about the Celtic heritage and still-living Traditions of those nations whilst simultaneously deriding that heritage and devaluing those Traditions. Oh, never mind. Some won't ever see beyond their own narrow, "modern" political views (and for the record, I'm all for the Independence of Scotland and the withdrawal of British forces from Northern Ireland, the economic viability of Celtic nations independent of any federalistic "Union," and so on).

--Croman

The point isn't to find the people most hostile to GT to get a good edit war going (or a massively critical article), but to find views that are on GT, but are not simply identical with it. What would be ideal would be independent academic scholarship on the topic, or at least at reputable news media level, but I assume that absence of evidence of these is at least beginning to seem like evidence of absence. If a topic is fairly well-known and uncontentious, a lack of watertight sources may seem a less urgent issue, but neither seems to be the case here. NPOV means representing all notable viewpoints in as balanced a mannner as possible, and while notability seems very much a grey area, you can't argue to preclude some viewpoint in advance simply on the grounds of it being too inimical. (i.e. the exercise is not to determine who is the most "neutral", and represent their view only.)

The criticism that has absolutely not been answered is lack of verification. You're assuming all sorts of bad faith motivations and moving-target standards, but see WP:RS for an indication of what the de facto situation is, and which so far as I know have not been heavily edited just for the sake of precluding the sources proferred in this discussion. While this is a somewhat less of an imperative than verifiability as such, they're a pretty fair guide.

I will say that that piece is very interesting in that it does address the relationships and taxonomy issues, which I've already flagged as a noticeable lack in the current article. But it's not clear to me that it entirely affirms the description hereat, or that conforming the article to this view (or even including it in it) would itself be uncontroversial from the GT POV, or ideal from an attempt at a "neutral" one. So while I'd like to think this may be a usable source, and using material from it a step forward, I don't think we're "there yet".

The heathen diaspora vs. narrow old-worlders stuff I won't address, except to say I don't think it's helpful to maintaining a good level of civility to personalise this (any more than it necessarily is already, at least). Alai 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alai, I just wanted to publicly thank you for your input here. You've consistently brought this discussion back to focusing on the basics of Wikipedia standards. I haven't agreed with everything you've written but it almost always seems to cut directly to the core issues. I'm mulling over your points to see if I can figure a way to bring the article in closer accord with these standards. --Mac 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)